Affairs and stuff

July 31, 2009 9:23 AM

Let's talk about this question.
posted by kathrineg to Etiquette/Policy at 9:23 AM (198 comments total)

There's nothing illegal there, unless your state still has adultery laws. I don't see the problem, other than his lack of a fedora.
posted by waraw at 9:24 AM on July 31, 2009

Let's talk about your reasons for talking about this question.
posted by gman at 9:25 AM on July 31, 2009 [11 favorites]

Okay I'll start. I know many people, myself included, have had life situations that were personally impacted by other people's affairs. That doesn't mean it's okay to show up in AskMe and basically be like OMG DON'T DO THIS.

It also means it's not okay to call people names who basically advise for or against the OPs plan of action. Don't like advice? It's totally okay to give reasonable responses to the OP and to other people without turning it into some holier-than-thou fightstarting thing.

That said, katherineg, did you have something to add?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:26 AM on July 31, 2009 [7 favorites]

I thought it was a silly question myself, but if all of us went to MeTa with all the questions we think are silly questions, all questions would go to MeTa.

I am laughing at all of the people who are saying "keep a mistress" when they mean "have an affair with a woman who has a spouse and family of her own" though. I want to know how they are getting Internet service from 1891.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:27 AM on July 31, 2009 [30 favorites]

Why are we talking about this question?
posted by desjardins at 9:27 AM on July 31, 2009

also, wtf tags
posted by desjardins at 9:28 AM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

I know many people, myself included, have had life situations that were personally impacted by other people's affairs. That doesn't mean it's okay to show up in AskMe and basically be like OMG DON'T DO THIS.

Why? The guy's question was, verbatim, "Can an affair ever work without ruining marriages?" OMG DON'T DO THIS is an answer to this question, isn' t it?
posted by waraw at 9:29 AM on July 31, 2009

"Can an affair ever work without ruining marriages?" OMG DON'T DO THIS is an answer to this question, isn't it?

No, it's really not.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:30 AM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]

I think the OP in that question has all kinds of bad living ahead of him, but I managed not to post that. What with all the practice I get from reading AskMe I am finally able (sometimes) to just let the trainwreck happen without shouting Look out! at the engineer.
posted by RussHy at 9:31 AM on July 31, 2009 [7 favorites]

The OP suggested that people who are currently successfully engaged in affairs might, for obvious reasons, not want to post, but could e-mail him. I would like to see those e-mails, myself.
posted by not that girl at 9:34 AM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

OMG DON'T DO THIS is an answer to this question, isn' t it?

"Here's my reasoning for why this is not workable or not worth trying to make workable: x, y, z" is an answer to the question, and a good one at that if it doesn't veer off into otherwise problematic territory.

The closer an answer gets to OMG DON'T territory and the farther it gets from an actual careful explanation of the objection, the worse the answer gets. This is the same general reason we remove straight-up acronym-only "DTMFA" answers from the green when we see them.

The vehemence of an opinion is not a factor in whether or not it has been expressed carefully; a thin borderline-non-answer doesn't get bonus points just because someone really means it. People making the effort to back up their opinions/positions with actual constructive explanation are the ones who are doing it right.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:35 AM on July 31, 2009 [11 favorites]

Let's turn the ugly lights on and close this sucker up.
posted by Mister_A at 9:37 AM on July 31, 2009

kathrineg, do you plan to weigh in?
posted by amro at 9:37 AM on July 31, 2009

This call-out is basically the same thing as dropping a flaming bag of poo on someones doorstep, ringing the doorbell and running away.
posted by pwally at 9:38 AM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]

what's this on my doorstep YIKES IT'S ON FIRE I BETTER STOMP IT OUT ok the flames seem to have subsided OH JESUS WHAT'S THIS ALL OVER MY FOOT
posted by brain_drain at 9:43 AM on July 31, 2009 [3 favorites]

kathrineg: Let's talk about this question. sex, baby, let's talk about you and me, let's talk about all the good things and the bad things that make we.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:43 AM on July 31, 2009 [8 favorites]

A question about sex? Scandalous.

So, what you're saying is let's talk about sex, baby?
posted by jeffamaphone at 9:45 AM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

I think, and I'm not sure, but this kind of question has been asked a million times before from a person who needs advice and guidance based on their individual circumstances. And it will show up again.

So why are you interested in talking about this specific question? What are you trying to get out of talking about it here? I'm genuinely curious. You can't honestly expect people to be disgusted by the very mention of the thought that the poster has been/is thinking about being unfaithful, can you? The poster hasn't even done anything yet.
posted by anniecat at 9:45 AM on July 31, 2009

should have previewed
posted by jeffamaphone at 9:45 AM on July 31, 2009

The guy's question was, verbatim, "Can an affair ever work without ruining marriages?

Yes and no. There were more questions he asked and he indicated that his mind wasn't made up and there was still a lot to think about. Most people wanted to ignore the "human in pain and confused angle" and just get on their soapbox and preach, which never really helps.

Has an interesting discussion about marriage, fidelity and sex developed yet? It would seem there's a lot to said about changing nature of relationships in a marriage, the effects of kids on the it and desire and the relationship between spouses, how people stay faithful in an increasingly sexualized world, the concept of ownership of an SO's genitals and what a commitment really is but I guess soapboxes are more fun.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:47 AM on July 31, 2009 [3 favorites]

I have no problem with the question. If you're not shooting people in the chest with a nailgun and asking about the best nails to use for penetrating the chest wall, or trying to waste everyone's time with drama, it's good by me. I even like chatfiltery nonsense, because sometimes wonderful things emerge out of them.

The answers, though, can be very predictable. It seems that for every question like, "I want to do X. How do I go about it?" you'll get a run of people who tell you that the best way solve the problem is to stop wanting to do X. I wish AskMe could get to the point where we credit the person asking the question with knowing their own mind (unless explicitly stating that they do not know their own mind) and having an IQ over 80.

In particular, this guy did the work. He talked, he did the counseling run, and so forth. But it still takes two to tango. I've seen friends suffer through miserable marriages where one partner actually says "I'm done with sex," and it means "you're done with sex, because I own you."

And it's all because it's about S-E-X. If the guy wanted to play chess, and they got married because one of their big shared hobbies was playing chess ("it's how we met!"), and suddenly she stopped wanting to play chess, everyone would say, "Find someone else to play chess with; your wife knew you liked chess from the get go, she can't forbid you from having chess in your life." But because it's about sex, suddenly this other person owns your reproductive organs and gets to pull a fast one on you. I call horsepuckey on this.

He's put in the effort, and anyone who bothered to read the question knows it, but somehow it turns into this deal where you get married, and the other person has to the right to get you fixed at any time — people have a very, very hard time getting around this idea. It's an idea that perpetuates the myth that marriage is a gelding ritual for unruly men and a way to turn women into complacent baby factories.

Marriage doesn't have to be this bizarre suicide pact for your sex life where each of you has a gun to the other's head (or groin). Honest.
posted by adipocere at 9:47 AM on July 31, 2009 [58 favorites]

The question was very broad:

"I still have a lot of soul-searching to do before I decide anything... I've just not been able to talk to anyone about this, so I need to hear from people outside my own head."

That's not just asking about the workability of executing a plan. The OP left the door wide open for any points of view, and that would include people saying he shouldn't do it because it's morally wrong. But many answers did condemn it in very strong terms, so the issue isn't whether people are allowed to disapprove. Clearly, you're allowed to post a disapproving answer when someone asks about having an extramarital affair. It seems like some answers were deleted because they were just too cursory (not giving any reasons), which is hard to argue with.
posted by Jaltcoh at 9:48 AM on July 31, 2009

Married dude wants to have sex not with just any other women; he wants to have sex with specifically his married friend. His real question is:

"Hey, hive mind, give me advice on how to (1) proposition this married woman who is also a friend, and (2) how to get away with having sex with her. If you have personal experience, I'd like to hear it."

But instead of asking that direct, straightforward question, he hems and haws and comes up with all of these explanations and tries to make himself to be a good guy and somewhat of a victim, and phrases the question with a bunch of hedge-words.

Which is his real problem. He. Can't. Get. To. The. Point.

Thus, his marriage fails; and any answer a lot of us have to that question will probably be rightly deleted as nonresponsive.
posted by jabberjaw at 9:50 AM on July 31, 2009

That doesn't mean it's okay to show up in AskMe and basically be like OMG DON'T DO THIS.

Would it be okay to say, "This is probably a really bad idea because there are people involved and whenever people are involved, there could be a huge mess, because people don't deal well with complication if they choose/are forced to deal with it." I find myself (maybe wrongly) giving this answer to similar questions because I try to imagine out what would happen to me in that scenario and I find myself totally exhausted by the very idea of the complication that could result.

If this was a question like, "Should I drink this bottle of blue-colored something? It might be a cleaning substance, but it could also be liquor because my grandad used to make liquor in the tub and it could be that. It smells like Windex though," then I'm guessing it would be okay to say, "Don't do it!" but the response would most likely have some elaboration: "Don't drink it unless you have really good health insurance! You could poison yourself, end up dead or in the hospital with huge medical bills, because, as a medical billing specialist, I can tell you that having to pump someone's stomach costs $xx,xxx. So if you want to drink it, make sure you have good insurance and 911 on speed dial."
posted by anniecat at 9:55 AM on July 31, 2009

kathrineg, can you comment on what your concerns are?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:58 AM on July 31, 2009

Just like a one sentence directive without an explanation makes for a bad answer on AskMe, a one sentence directive without an explanation makes for a bad call out on MeTa.
posted by Caduceus at 9:58 AM on July 31, 2009

I guess "Let's talk about..." means "You guys should talk about..." to kathrineg.
posted by rtha at 10:02 AM on July 31, 2009

In particular, this guy did the work.

The part of the work he hasn't done (yet) though is talk to his wife about what he wants. And he needs to do that part, as many of the folks in that thread have pointed out.
posted by rtha at 10:05 AM on July 31, 2009 [3 favorites]

Would it be okay to say, "This is probably a really bad idea..."

My response is probably. The basic point is that there's a difference between a question that is basically asking "Should I do this?" [as in your example] and someone who is asking "How can I do this?" [as in the question]. It's okay, totally okay, to respond "Well I think maybe you shouldn't do this for these reasons..." that manages to do a few things

- not insult the poster directly for what is basically at this point a thought crime
- assure the poster that you have actually read and understood the question, or the jist of it
- indicate that you are responding to the poster's actual question and situation and not just responding with boilerplate emotional "this is how I feel about topic X" comments.

As adipocere says above, the situation is complicated, the OP has done some work, they OP has some blind spots, he seems to be in a great position to get some decent advice, even if the advice is of the "Hmmm, I think you think you have this all figured out but here is why I am thinking maybe you don't have it all figured out" variety.

Some people seem to have what I consider Idiocracy responses to some topics where it's as if the exchange went like this

OP: AFFAIRZ OK OR WHY NO
Commenter: ZOMG NO WTF DUMASS

Put another way, if you're someone who thinks that having sex with other people while married is always every single time wrong, you're probably not a great person to answer that particular question unless you can acknowledge that there are other ways to be human than your own personal moral compass. People gave a lot of great thoughtful answers that were all over the spectrum in that thread so far. I'd like to see it still be a place where that can happen.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:08 AM on July 31, 2009 [22 favorites]

Why? The guy's question was, verbatim, "Can an affair ever work without ruining marriages?" OMG DON'T DO THIS is an answer to this question, isn' t it?

It might be if it was only posted once. The problem with situations like this is that people tend to post their opinion despite the fact that there are a dozen or more identical preceding opinons. It would be nice if more people read all the answers already given and refrained from posting unless they had something truly original to add.
posted by orange swan at 10:17 AM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]

Excellent use of the under-rated "hityourwifeinthekneewithahammer" tag.
posted by paisley henosis at 10:24 AM on July 31, 2009

I kinda sorta agree, orange swan, but at the same time it can be useful for the OP to see a string of people reinforcing a consistent opinion/response. He's asking for this community's feedback, and if he gets a string of 20 answers in a row saying OMG DON'T DO THIS, it might cause him to reconsider. (Maybe it's less useful in this case than for the "Um, my head fell off my neck last night while I was sleeping, should I see a doctor?" type questions.)
posted by brandman at 10:24 AM on July 31, 2009

katherineg, oh katherineg,
You don't know what you mean to me
You're close to causing trouble, see?
You start a post and then you flee.

(She doesn't want to cause a stir, she
Only wants the world to see
That question asker's villainy
Has courted some controversy
And she would rather like to see
If Metatalk (the place to be!)
Would take an interest in her plea:
That man who plans adultery
-for shame! in anonymity-
Might not be better served some tea
Some soothing words, or sympathy
A gentle tap upon his knee
A kindly word; why not? they're free
Not judged and hanged with cruelty
Or mocked with animosity
(or MeTa's famous snarkery)

But kathrineg, Our kathrineg!
Desires accountability
But ah, we say, its cruel, you see
To start a thread so merrily
Then skip away before you've e
-ven said a word explanatory

katherineg, Oh! katherineg
Let's leave this place now, you and me
And buy a cottage by the sea
Where we can live with dignity
And when they write the homily
Of me and lovely katherineg
They'll start with an apology:

"So sad", (they'll say), "to have to see,
A MeTa thread without that key
Important point: A Crux that we
Can pivot on discursively.

If you don't have one, how may we?"
posted by Jofus at 10:27 AM on July 31, 2009 [38 favorites]

adipocere, I hear what you are saying. No one should have to give up a healthy, vigorous sex life when they get married. And saying, "I'm just not interested in sex any more, so you're done, too," is (in my opinion, and this is Metatalk, so I can voice it) absolutely unacceptable. It's selfish and tyrannical.

But going out and having sex for spite, even when couching it in "no stings attached" language, while tempting in that situation, doesn't solve the problem. Because the problem isn't just the lack of interest in sex from one partner, it's the control issues, the inability to compromise, and the bullying attitude of, "If I don't want it, you can't have it."

Also, I'm not so sure that in this case, his wife admitting it is "her fault" is akin to, "And she isn't willing to work on it with me." It might just mean that he isn't willing to put the work in with her, when there's this sexy friend who looks so attractive right now distracting him.
posted by misha at 10:27 AM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]

Mind your own effing business, you geedee busybody.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:29 AM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

Also, kathrineg, why the frak would you start up this thread in the manner in which you did and then not even bother to contribute? That's just lame.
posted by kbanas at 10:30 AM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

(Unless you pronounce it "kathrin-egg", in which case you can POKE IT)
posted by Jofus at 10:30 AM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

It is a yes/no question. The answer is either yes, no, or maybe, with an explanation.

Unless you have knowledge of all extra-marital affairs, then you can't know whether they all work or not. And if just one of them does (or one doesn't) work, then the answer can't be either an absolute no or yes.

Logically, therefore, the only accurate answer has to be maybe.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:31 AM on July 31, 2009

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this thread is a blatant troll. Or as my Dad used to say, "let's you & him fight". Seriously, why are we encouraging this bad behavior?
posted by scalefree at 10:37 AM on July 31, 2009

Message: My friend ask about affairs, I say let's talk about this question. Why no?
posted by SpiffyRob at 10:38 AM on July 31, 2009

So much can be resolved with a simple freaky three way.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:39 AM on July 31, 2009 [9 favorites]

That AskMe is mighty puranical. Was there a self-righteous punch being given out that I wasn't aware of?
posted by litleozy at 10:40 AM on July 31, 2009

OP: AFFAIRZ OK OR WHY NO
Commenter: ZOMG NO WTF DUMASS

So it's not okay to ask about The Count of Monte Cristo, jessamyn?
posted by P.o.B. at 10:42 AM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]

So long as everyone involved takes a shower, I don't see what the big deal is.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:42 AM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

What we talk about when we talk about this question.
posted by octobersurprise at 10:44 AM on July 31, 2009 [4 favorites]

Which is his real problem. He. Can't. Get. To. The. Point.

Thus, his marriage fails; and any answer a lot of us have to that question will probably be rightly deleted as nonresponsive.
posted by jabberjaw at 12:50 PM on July 31


Thus his marriage fails? Can you even see this guy from way up on that horse?
posted by lazaruslong at 10:44 AM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]

So much can be resolved with a simple freaky three way.

Just ask the Count of Monte Crisco.
posted by octobersurprise at 10:48 AM on July 31, 2009 [5 favorites]

So long as everyone involved takes a shower, I don't see what the big deal is.

And changes the sheets, and takes the other lover's damp towel out of the bathroom. Years ago when I was involved for awhile with a woman who'd been in a non-monogamous relationship for 20 or so years (and still was), she said relatively small things like this were actually among the most important for maintaining emotional equilibrium.

That was an interesting experience. Once, early on, I ended up spending the night with her when I hadn't planned to. This might have been our first night together. She had very short hair, and didn't own a brush. So I couldn't brush out my long, tangled hair in the morning. She said, "Oh, don't worry about it, let me take you to my favorite diner for breakfast."

So I did some futile patting and arranging of the rat's nest on my head, and we went to her favorite diner. Which was also her lover's favorite diner. Her lover was already there, breakfasting with her other lover. "Join us!" they said. So we did.

I will always remember her lover looking at me across the table, pointedly taking in the hair, and saying with a big salacious grin, "So, have a good time last night?"
posted by not that girl at 10:50 AM on July 31, 2009 [6 favorites]

"This is probably a really bad idea because there are people involved and whenever people are involved, there could be a huge mess, because people don't deal well with complication if they choose/are forced to deal with it."

That's why I haven't left my apartment in 6 years.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:52 AM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

Misha, I absolutely agree, but I didn't want to open up that particular can of worms. It's an enormous control issue, and one so staggering it borders on solipsistic. I'd divorce someone in a heartbeat if they even hinted at the idea that they'd think I'd just buck up and be okay with it — at that point, I know I'm married to someone who is unwilling to grant the full range of humanity to me and it's all over, anyway.

And there is of course narrative bias. For all we know, the poster's wife is sexually uninterested because he has not bathed in two years — but I tend to take things as written, because 1) it's all we have to go on, 2) there's no bottom to the narrative bias hole, and 3) it absolutely infuriates me when someone does it to me. I will admit to the third being probably most of my reason.

However, (and my recollections here are fairly hazy), sexuality is supposed to be very distracting, in the way that, while (barring medical conditions) you won't starve to death if you do not eat for a couple of days, by the end of forty-eight hours, you're not exactly going to be wondering which one is the salad fork before you chow down if presented with a hot and tasty meal. If said poster is sexually deprived, it's reasonable to assume he's gotten a little unreasonable. He's twitchy. He's jumping out of his skin. May be jumping out of his pants. He might not even be able to clearly look at the problem to work on it with his wife until he's let off some steam.

Sex is, as far as I know, an irrational and crazy-making thing. Sometimes you can only have so much "sense" in dealing with that sort of thing before you've lost the sense of it entirely. If my spouse maced me in the face, yes, it would be good to work on why that happened, what aggression issues might be present, and healthy ways to display anger, but right now I'm too busy screaming "AGGHG! IT BURNS! SWEET FUCKING CHRIST, GET IT OUT OF MY EYES!!!!" and waving wildly through the air with my fists.

I suspect that's where the poster is right now — a little bit crazed — and bad, counter-productive behavior might occur. I'd be in no hurry to blame him for it, though.
posted by adipocere at 10:52 AM on July 31, 2009 [6 favorites]

I find that barbed roofing staples work best. Doubles the penetrative impact, plus the barbs do massive soft tissue damage and are difficult to extract without causing more trauma.

I'm sorry, what?
posted by BitterOldPunk at 10:52 AM on July 31, 2009 [8 favorites]

Can you even see this guy from way up on that horse?

No, lazaruslong, but I can see you just fine!

Wait - are you asserting that a guy that wants to cheat on his wife - and anonymously asks for advice on how to do it, here - is in a successful marriage?
posted by jabberjaw at 10:53 AM on July 31, 2009

Is there a mechanism to call out a call out?

What the hell did you think you were going to achieve by stomping your foot of indignation and then pissing off? Isn't askme where we answer the question, not here on the grey?
posted by twine42 at 10:53 AM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

Wait - are you asserting that a guy that wants to cheat on his wife - and anonymously asks for advice on how to do it, here - is in a successful marriage?
posted by jabberjaw at 1:53 PM

No, I'm saying it's not within the scope of the question, or perspective, or knowledge, or reason, to make the assumption that his marriage will fail.

And to be even more clear, you suggested his marriage fails because he "can't get to the point". Not because he wants to have an affair. If you want to make a case for why anyone who wants to have an affair has a failed marriage, go for it. I'm listening. But don't pretend to have some prophetic knowledge of a Random Internet Poster, or to be the Arbiter of Marital Health.
posted by lazaruslong at 10:56 AM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

Okay, kathrineg, I'm definitely starting to notice a pattern in your posts and comments, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Say why you started this thread. Say what you want to say about that question. Say why you used the tags you used on this post. Own up to your opinions.
posted by roll truck roll at 11:01 AM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

My guess is that kathrineg's intent on starting this thread was more of "hey, I see some derails happening, let's start a MeTa so people can take it over there" rather than "hey, I have a specific problem with this question/answers." Just a guess though.
posted by Metroid Baby at 11:01 AM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]

People who post MeTa threads and then abandon them should be fucking banned.
posted by mullacc at 11:07 AM on July 31, 2009 [9 favorites]

8/10. Would rage again.
posted by cimbrog at 11:12 AM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

So "Let's talk about this question" actually means "why don't you guys talk about this question"?

It's like when I was a child and my mother would say "Let's try and play nice," but she wasn't playing, and, moreover, she wasn't the one who had just hit the other kid for wanting to take my GI Joe.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:16 AM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]

My guess is that kathrineg's intent on starting this thread was more of "hey, I see some derails happening, let's start a MeTa so people can take it over there" rather than "hey, I have a specific problem with this question/answers." Just a guess though.

Those tags read pretty fighty to me.
posted by dirtdirt at 11:20 AM on July 31, 2009

jessamyn: That doesn't mean it's okay to show up in AskMe and basically be like OMG DON'T DO THIS.

jessamyn: It's okay, totally okay, to respond "Well I think maybe you shouldn't do this for these reasons..." that manages to do a few things:
- not insult the poster directly for what is basically at this point a thought crime
- assure the poster that you have actually read and understood the question, or the jist of it

-------

I don't mean to call you out jessamyn, but these comments are curious given that "OMG DON'T DO THIS" is pretty much all that dbgrady had to say, yet his comment was not deleted when you removed "the judgeme stuff."

Furthermore, he both:

1. Insulted the poster: "Here's a plan: BE A MAN" and "Your problems are beyond the scope of Ask Metafilter" and "Tell me, are you the governor of a coastal, southern state?"
2. Did not read the question:
   • OP: "we're both at a point where it's clear that our efforts to improve our marriages are not working (we've done counseling, talked, read books, attended seminars, etc.). Both our spouses have acknowledged that yes, the deficiencies in the physical department are their fault"
   • dbgrady: "Sit down with your wife and explain that the romance is gone from your marriage. Tell her you want to enter couples counseling"

I know his comment was significantly more than a one-liner in all caps, but if you ask me, comments that end with "I'm not sure why I bothered responding" shouldn't be responses at all.
posted by aheckler at 11:20 AM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

"No, I'm saying it's not within the scope of the question, or perspective, or knowledge, or reason, to make the assumption that his marriage will fail."

Yeah, that's why I didn't post the answer in the actual AskMe thread.

"And to be even more clear, you suggested his marriage fails because he "can't get to the point"."

That's not what I suggested, that what I said. I believe that open, honest and direct communcations are a key component of a successful marriage. If you believe that beating around the bush and being dishonest about your feelings is a good thing for life-partners, then cool.

"If you want to make a case for why anyone who wants to have an affair has a failed marriage, go for it."

Wait-what? How doesn't cheating stem from a failing marriage? By the way, I'd more likely classify his marriage as "failing," rather than "failed."

You mustn't be a very big fan of DTMFA advice. Or the concept of "flag and move on."
posted by jabberjaw at 11:21 AM on July 31, 2009

Can we talk about pancakes now?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:27 AM on July 31, 2009

mmmm.

Buckwheat pancakes are perfect on a midwinter day after you've spent the morning shoveling the sidwalk.
posted by Dr-Baa at 11:29 AM on July 31, 2009

Sidwalk= sidewalk.

Not a pathway for Sid Vicious.
posted by Dr-Baa at 11:29 AM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

.....Jesus, I'm thisclose to issuing my own MeTa post about chiding someone who doesn't contribute to a thread they start the very second they start it.

Sure, yeah, it'd have been great if katherineg weighed in on the topic when she posted, and had contributed more sooner, but - come on, any number of things could have happened. She could have gotten confused with the blue, where we have a conniption if anyone editorializes in the post when they post it, and meant to wait to comment a couple comments in but then a) the building caught fire, b) her cat caught fire, c) she caught fire, or d) David Tennant walked through the door on fire, and she had to 1.)escape, 2.) go to the vet, 3.) go to the doctor, or 4.) throw water on David Tennant and then give him my address and send him my way with rose between his teeth and a refill of limoncello in his hand.*

* Oh, come on, it could happen.

I could see the "why did you abandon this thread" after a day, but only a couple hours?

For the record: I think the respondents in the original thread who emphasized the "look, this isn't necessarily about you having sexytime with other people, but about the not-telling-your-wife-about-it" aspect were dead on. Yay.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:30 AM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]

if you ask me, comments that end with "I'm not sure why I bothered responding" shouldn't be responses at all.

Yeah I wasn't thrilled with it. It was earlier in the thread when it was more of an outlier to the "I don't think doing this is such a good idea" camp and before people started with the more "you are a bad person for even thinking about this" comments in earnest. At this point, once a thread is in MeTa it's less simple to just go in and elide it, but more like one of those cases where yeah, next time a comment like that would go.

How doesn't cheating stem from a failing marriage?

Failing vs failed is a really large semantic difference and as many people have pointed out, there are a heap of possible alternatives and outcomes, some of which aren't cheating. Some people can't imagine any possible universe in which some definitions of marriage also include some amount of non-spousal sex-having but while people may argue that their definitions are more normative, it doesn't make the other ones wrong.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:31 AM on July 31, 2009

This is a bad callout and the thread should be closed unless the poster has something interesting to say about her bag of poo. Also, she should be told not to pull this shit again.
posted by languagehat at 11:33 AM on July 31, 2009 [7 favorites]

Unless, of course, one of EmpressCallipygos's "any number of things" actually did happen. I await the solution with bated breath!
posted by languagehat at 11:35 AM on July 31, 2009

jessamym, could you make it so that I can favorite your comment like a hundred more times?
posted by desuetude at 11:35 AM on July 31, 2009

Languagehat: This is a bad callout and the thread should be closed unless the poster has something interesting to say about her bag of poo. ....Unless, of course, one of EmpressCallipygos's "any number of things" actually did happen.

Come ooooooooon, option 4....

The World Famous: When I see, in an AskMe or MeFi thread, someone proclaiming that there is a MetaTalk thread now open on the issue by posting "MeTa!" the little voice inside my head says "MeTa!" just like if it was saying "TaDa!" Am I the only one?

Now that you mention it, for me it's more like Hiro in Heroes saying "Yat-TA!"
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:38 AM on July 31, 2009

Bans can be lifted in cases of emergencies involving pre-approved TV personalities.
posted by mullacc at 11:43 AM on July 31, 2009

I'm neither certain that katherineg meant ill nor certain that her posting with no details and no followup is the product of purely innocent misapprehension. The release-valve-with-mention-in-the-askme concept is bog-standard okay stuff, the snarky tags and lack of any explanation is not so good at all. I'd like her to come in here and provide some context, even if that context turns out to just be "I had no idea this'd be a problem, sorry".

In general, folks starting metatalk threads with a lack of explanation or context and then failing or even refusing to stick around to make up for that is not something we're very happy with, yeah. It makes for a distracting sidebar to what the thread is ostensibly about, and sets up some extra unnecessary friction that was easily avoidable.

But as far as what we're doing with this thread in particular: that askme has been pretty contentious, people obviously have some non-askme conversation they feel like having about this, and aside from the distracting apparent incompleteness of the post itself I think the thread is better left open than closed for those reasons.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:44 AM on July 31, 2009

adipocere: And it's all because it's about S-E-X. If the guy wanted to play chess, and they got married because one of their big shared hobbies was playing chess ("it's how we met!"), and suddenly she stopped wanting to play chess, everyone would say, "Find someone else to play chess with; your wife knew you liked chess from the get go, she can't forbid you from having chess in your life." But because it's about sex, suddenly this other person owns your reproductive organs and gets to pull a fast one on you. I call horsepuckey on this.

False analogy. Who would suggest that a person lie to their partner about playing chess with others? Why is it OK to lie in this instance? I agree that cutting off sex (barring medical reasons and the possibility the poster hasn't bathed) is deplorable, but it does not justify dishonesty. "Honey, if you won't give it to me, I'm going to find someone who will" is more honorable than just sneaking around.
posted by desjardins at 11:45 AM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]

Could we hear from the wife and the other husband? Aren't they the ones to decide if any cheating is to be done?
posted by Cranberry at 11:49 AM on July 31, 2009

desjardins, that would be an excellent point, and a pretty good idea ...

... which is why I made it, to begin with, in answering the question itself, like so "I'd let the decision rest with your wife. She gets to decide if she is going to have regular, fulfilling sex with you or if someone else will be having regular, fulfilling sex with you."

First thing I said.

It'd be a false analogy if I had suggested that he sneak out to secret chess meetups in the park, and maybe the occasional chess tournament, playing against unknown opponents, maybe even without wearing gloves while he moved the pieces around. Good thing I didn't do that.

"Honey, if you don't want to checkmate me, I'll find someone who will. I like chess. I like chess with you. I like long, slow chess games with you, and I like the speed matches. I like it when you win, or when I win, or when it's a draw. But if you don't want to play chess with me, I'll find someone who will. Someone who likes it when I move the horsey piece around. Awww yeah."
posted by adipocere at 11:56 AM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]

Let's talk about the future. Let's talk about the wedding. Let's talk about Gwen Stefani.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:02 PM on July 31, 2009

I lost a bet with myself because I was sure it was the barking dog question that would end up in Meta and while I was thinking about that, I completely missed the adultery question. Damn. In all seriousness, though, anyone who has spent any time on Askme just knows that adultery is one of those topics, like casual drug use and circumcised obese declawed cats, that just never goes well. The Perfect People descend with their views from on high and, well, it's always downhill from there.
posted by mygothlaundry at 12:14 PM on July 31, 2009 [5 favorites]

Theory: katherineg is the wife.
posted by restless_nomad at 12:14 PM on July 31, 2009 [6 favorites]

Let's talk about why katherineg won't talk about this.

Some more, I mean.
posted by Halloween Jack at 12:18 PM on July 31, 2009

Oh, and there I was thinking "don't be so hard on kathrineg; for all you know she had a major emergency right after posting..."
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:23 PM on July 31, 2009

Hey, at least the callout doesn't end with "Discuss".
posted by Dr Dracator at 12:27 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

I thought dgbrady's list was solid for the upper middle class NPR listening kind of family but doesn't capture the full range of possible adultery consequences like how your kids might react to actually seeing their parents fist fight and where to sit when you want to watch TV and all the furniture's been destroyed.
posted by The Straightener at 12:27 PM on July 31, 2009 [7 favorites]

Maybe Kath's emergency was finding out that her husband was posting about the affair he wanted to have.
posted by TomMelee at 12:29 PM on July 31, 2009

the snarky tags and lack of any explanation is not so good at all.

Not to mention that a post consisting of nothing but "Let's talk about this question" makes for the world's most unsearchable post.
posted by Rhomboid at 12:30 PM on July 31, 2009

Was there a self-righteous punch being given out that I wasn't aware of?

You don't read AskMe very often, do you?
posted by timeistight at 12:30 PM on July 31, 2009

like how your kids might react to actually seeing their parents fist fight and where to sit when you want to watch TV and all the furniture's been destroyed.

No kidding! And how the subsequent conviction will affect your job marketability.
posted by small_ruminant at 12:33 PM on July 31, 2009

Maybe folks can stop worrying about kathrineg for the time being and she can get back to this when she has a chance to, okay?
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:38 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Katherineg posted this tripe of a MeTa post and never ever actually had anything to say about the AskMe?

God, I find people flawed sometimes.
posted by delfuego at 12:41 PM on July 31, 2009

Who would suggest that a person lie to their partner about playing chess with others?

"OMG, you've been chessing behind my back?"

"No, behind your rook. Checkmate."
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:42 PM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]

(And post-preview, Cortex, I'm usually willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, but we're talking a ridiculous-on-its-face MeTa post over three hours ago with no more than five contextless words, and then nothing. This is either trolling or intellectual laziness.)
posted by delfuego at 12:42 PM on July 31, 2009

Maybe folks can stop worrying about kathrineg for the time being and she can get back to this when she has a chance to, okay?

Can you at least remove those ridiculous tags?
posted by scalefree at 12:46 PM on July 31, 2009

Maybe Kath's emergency was finding out that her husband was posting about the affair he wanted to have.

Geez, all the woman did was make an ill-constructed MeTa post. What if her mother is in the hospital or something serious? That's just not cool.
posted by desjardins at 12:48 PM on July 31, 2009 [5 favorites]

Alphabet game until she comes back?
posted by rtha at 12:50 PM on July 31, 2009

I dislike it too, it's not quite "and then nothing" at this point, and people have pretty well covered the "wtf kathrineg" angle at this point pretty well.

I'm not saying "don't be annoyed", I'm saying "maybe give it a rest because it's seeming increasingly gratuitous". I don't think it costs us anything to extend some bare minimum of the benefit of the doubt here and treat it as potentially just foolish behavior rather than malicious and deserving of an extended pileon, is all.

Can you at least remove those ridiculous tags?

Yeah, deal.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:50 PM on July 31, 2009 [3 favorites]

What if her mother is in the hospital or something serious? That's just not cool.

What if TomMelee's mother is in the hospital? Did you think about that? What if my mother was in the hospital?

You never even called.
posted by electroboy at 12:52 PM on July 31, 2009

am in the minority to think the thread in question has a lot of good, well reasoned responses? sure - there's a fair amount of moralizing and OMG YOU'RE A TERRIBLE PERSON - but i think over all, it went way better than it could have. the mods have done a pretty alright job removing shitty comments. add to that the relatively non-flamey discussions about the responsibility of sexual satifaction as it balances against an honest relationship with your spouse - i'd say it was a success.

some people are never going to think an affair is ok. some people are going to too quickly knee jerk to 'an affair is totally the answer', but, over all, i think that thread fits somewhere in the middle.
posted by nadawi at 1:00 PM on July 31, 2009

Can you at least remove those ridiculous tags?

you do realize that at least one of those ridiculous tags came directly from the thread in question, right?
posted by msconduct at 1:09 PM on July 31, 2009

"No, behind your rook. Checkmate."

damn, pwned.
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:19 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

When I see, in an AskMe or MeFi thread, someone proclaiming that there is a MetaTalk thread now open on the issue by posting "MeTa!" the little voice inside my head says "MeTa!" just like if it was saying "TaDa!"

Well...now, yeah.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 1:21 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

Just to emphasize that my own "OMG dont do this" was meant as very practical advice, not a moral judgment. Anyone who's ever been in or near a situation like this from any position (and I bet every single one of us has in some way) can project the sheer disruption and misery and expense that will follow, at a minimum. Just from a risk management perspective, it ain't worth it. There are way less risky ways, some more honest, some more insidious, to get laid or for that matter to keep a mistress, if you DO grant the ultimate morality of doing so.

IF you don't -- if you consider any given pursuit of adulterous sex or extramarital affection to be, a priori, as wrong as any other adulterous sex or extramarital affection -- of course it goes without saying that you shouldn't proceed. The question is preposterous on a practical level if you cannot grant its moral premise.

The advice not to proceed is, in other words, good advice even if you don't think all adultery is evil to the same degree in all cases, from a purely pragmatic stance.

The problem is that it never makes sense to participate in someone else's rationalization of a stupid plan.
posted by fourcheesemac at 1:21 PM on July 31, 2009

xteraco had a major family emergency that kept him from a crucial appointment as well, iirc.
posted by waraw at 1:22 PM on July 31, 2009

I actually hear it in the Oprah Winfrey voice, the 'John TraVOLTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA'.

MetAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
posted by A Terrible Llama at 1:22 PM on July 31, 2009 [3 favorites]

am in the minority to think the thread in question has a lot of good, well reasoned responses?

Yeah, there was some good stuff in there. As for the moralising, I guess that an alternative universe version of MeFi where Europeans formed the majority would've had a different centre of gravity - the French & Italians, in particular, seem to have a vastly different framework for conceptualising affairs; as being often healthy & nearly de rigeur in a longstanding marriage.
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:23 PM on July 31, 2009

Needs more judgment
posted by EatTheWeek at 1:31 PM on July 31, 2009

I get nervous when I do tests. I already had an IQ test this year.

Do you make these questions up or do they write them down for you?

Let's talk about the future. Let's talk about the wedding. Let's talk about Gwen Stefani.

Gwen Stefani? Let me tell you about Gwen Stefani.
posted by GuyZero at 1:38 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

I can't believe that question was actually posted.
posted by biochemist at 1:42 PM on July 31, 2009

Just to emphasize that my own "OMG dont do this" was meant as very practical advice, not a moral judgment. Anyone who's ever been in or near a situation like this from any position (and I bet every single one of us has in some way) can project the sheer disruption and misery and expense that will follow, at a minimum. Just from a risk management perspective, it ain't worth it.

Uhh, this is still judgment, and no, not every situation like this ends in misery.
posted by desuetude at 1:45 PM on July 31, 2009

The questions about infidelity always strike a bit of a nerve with me. My gut reaction, before I rein it in, is "Are you SERIOUS?!" because it's just so far from my own mentality. A lot of awful issues could lead you to consider cheating on your spouse, but I guess in my eyes, the person who begins to consistently lie about where they are, or what they're doing, or how happy they are day-to-day, automatically becomes the worse one. Possibly because through lies, you are taking away the rights of your spouse to decide how they live their life. A lot of relationships (that become marriages) have a don't-ask-don't-tell policy, or something akin to it, but those relationships are consentual, and mutually built that way. It's not fair for someone to change the dynamics of a relationship without informing their partner that it has changed. You know..?

It kinda squicks me out when I see people waving a green flag for something like this. I don't like the expression "Have you cake and eat it too," but the gist of it embodies exactly what the poster of that question is trying to do - and it's a cruel, dishonest and rather selfish move.

*calms down and runs to get tea*
posted by Tequila Mockingbird at 2:01 PM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]

That all now looks like a lot of unfair harshness on kathrineg after this comment.

But see also this (which refers to this).
posted by motty at 2:02 PM on July 31, 2009

I know exactly where this complaint is coming from..

In the interest of brevity, I won't go into the details,

Don't lead us on like that man. Not cool.
posted by Chuckles at 2:17 PM on July 31, 2009

Uhh, this is still judgment, and no, not every situation like this ends in misery.

What, having affairs with a married woman who your wife also knows and whose husband you know, when you both have kids, and probably otherwise run in the same social circle as well? Sure, it's impossible to say categorically that there's never been a situation like that that didn't end in misery, but if there were some way to prove it, I'd put down a significant amount of money that there's a greater than 99% chance they'd be caught eventually in that particular situation, and I don't think there's any chance that getting caught wouldn't end in misery.
posted by Caduceus at 2:18 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

Maybe folks can stop worrying about kathrineg for the time being and she can get back to this when she has a chance to, okay?

And in the meantime, a hundred MeFites who didn't see anything MeTa-worthy get to discuss what might be wrong with the question?

My theory: kathrineg is working on her psych masters thesis.

Pony request: insta-delete of MeTa posts that:
i) do not link to impugned thread or comments, or
ii) do not state what the poster's problem with the thread or comments is.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 2:18 PM on July 31, 2009

Lies can be horrible things that slowly erode at the foundation of trust upon which marriage is built.

Of course, there is always that lie that our marriage will be even more wonderful than what we had when we were dating. No, honey, I know you're nervous about that old joke, "Why is the bride smiling? Because she knows she's given her last blowjob." Of course our marriage won't be like that. My feelings and physical affection for you will only grow stronger.

She's broken that trust and decided that how he is to live his sexless life. The poster's wife wants to have her spouse, and have no-one else eat him, too. That's a very cruel and selfish move. So, yes, I agree; lies are terrible.

It's just that usually one lie leads to another.
posted by adipocere at 2:21 PM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]

And in the meantime, a hundred MeFites who didn't see anything MeTa-worthy get to discuss what might be wrong with the question?

Pretty much, yeah. Since when has metatalk conversation about a contentious topic depended solely on the dictates of any one given user? Folks have in fact been actively discussing some of the conflicts that have been brewing (and in some cases leading to deleted comments) in the askme, or discussing why they don't perceive those conflicts and such as being valid, etc.

The problem in this case with kathrineg's failure to frame out the metatalk post with some context is not that there's consequently nothing to discuss (and, in fact, if that had clearly been the case we would have closed the thing down immediately) but that the dearth of info leaves folks distracted by the question of what her personal motivation for posting was. Which is an okay question, but not one that's going to get answered by hammering on her continually in her absence.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:24 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

Whoa. Thanks for that, motty. That's some food for thought for sure.
posted by Night_owl at 2:31 PM on July 31, 2009

Uhh, this is still judgment, and no, not every situation like this ends in misery.
posted by desuetude

Almost certainly true; therefore, I should have said "has a high chance of ending in misery if you can't pull off a near perfect level of secrecy, and your mistress too, under daunting conditions to do so." The level of misery being risked is so high that, indeed, in my judgment, it's not worth the risk of having such an affair for the stated reasons the OP wanted to do so (i.e., for the sex).

Yes, it's a judgment, but not a moral one. A risk management one. Like, sure you could drive on the freeway in the rain at high speed with your lights off and while texting. It might even be a total thrill to do it. But not only do you risk dying; you risk killing and maiming other people if you do that. Your own life will be turned completely upside down from that point forward, even if you don't give a shit who you kill or maim.

Hyperbole, sure. Affairs don't (usually) lead to physical injury if discovered.

All I'm saying is I wouldn't risk it even if I *were* a heartless bastard.
posted by fourcheesemac at 2:37 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

adipocere: "She's broken that trust and decided that how he is to live his sexless life. The poster's wife wants to have her spouse, and have no-one else eat him, too. That's a very cruel and selfish move. So, yes, I agree; lies are terrible.

It's just that usually one lie leads to another."

But here we're making guesses about his wife - I could have a dozen reasonable excuses for her behavior to your dozen on the other end of the spectrum. I completely agree, if someone thinks they can dictate your life like that once the ring is on your finger, they're all sorts of undeserving scum. But is that what's going on with the OP? And even if you discover that your spouse is that manipulative, is it really right to sink to their level and become a regular liar to your family?

Maybe we disagree on what's the worst of the two. I just could never excuse cheating as "s/he didn't give me what I want." Be a better person and break it off, IMO.
posted by Tequila Mockingbird at 2:38 PM on July 31, 2009

I'd divorce someone in a heartbeat if they even hinted at the idea that they'd think I'd just buck up and be okay with it — at that point, I know I'm married to someone who is unwilling to grant the full range of humanity to me and it's all over, anyway.

And that's the point right there. You DIVORCE them. You don't go sneaking behind their back fucking the god damned family friend. According to him, she's been pretty upfront with everything, even admitting the problem with their sex life is her "fault" (which is fishy to me). Sure denying him sex categorically is pretty foul, if in fact that's what's happening, which is unclear, but secreting shtupping the married woman down the road is dishonest and worse.
posted by milarepa at 2:41 PM on July 31, 2009

Sure denying him sex categorically is pretty foul, if in fact that's what's happening, which is unclear

No, it's pretty clear. Go reread the first two paragraphs. The whole point of the post is he's tried to work it out with the wife and nothing has happened. I'm not sure why you want to call him a liar.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:51 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

This post works as a release for knee-jerk anti-cheating people and pro-cheating people alike. Giving a shit about katherineg's presence or lack of in this thread is missing the point. It's also lazy and pathetic. How about I make a note to harass some of you when you don't continue to participate at a frequency most convenient to me?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:55 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

You prefer that he put his wife, his kids and himself through a divorce that none of them want? What misery could this end with that would be worse than that?
posted by timeistight at 2:55 PM on July 31, 2009

adipocere: It's just that usually one lie leads to another.

That's about the only line in your comment that I agree with. The rest of your comments (both here and in the thread) are so very bitter about the wife...which I find unusual in that we don't have her perspective, or even know if the poster is telling the truth.

But lies breeding lies...oh, so true.
posted by dejah420 at 2:56 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

kathrineg, Hope everything's okay. :(
posted by zarq at 2:58 PM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]

timeistight: "You prefer that he put his wife, his kids and himself through a divorce that none of them want? What misery could this end with that would be worse than that?"

Hope I'm reading that correctly. Are you saying that consequences brought on by his cheating would never be as bad as a divorce no one in the family wants..?
posted by Tequila Mockingbird at 3:02 PM on July 31, 2009

Poor threads, both - I vote for shut up and move on.
posted by Phanx at 3:04 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

Tequila, if you had read what you'd written earlier (second paragraph), I had allowed that there might be some good reasons that the spouse would be disinterested.

There's a huge difference between "didn't give me what I want" (which happens all of the time in any relationship, romantic or not) and yanking the rug out from someone. Imagine if your spouse just decided never to smile at you again, or hug you. Out of nowhere. Wouldn't you feel terribly betrayed? Hey, it's just "not getting what you want," right? No, of course not.

I have also allowed that we never know the full story, but that's true of most sufficiently complex AskMes, anyway. Taking them at face value, unless the situation seems overwhelmingly fishy, is the respectful thing to do, and about the only way you can avoid the endless parallel universe interpretations which are more about soapboxing than actually answering the question. And hopefully we are in AskMe to answer the question. Sure, we can be funny, we can be personal, but an answer needs to be in there at some point.

And milarepa, I am not sure how many times I need to state that I suggested discussion, from the get-go. No sneaking.

And that's what I have been getting at: the spouse has made one decision, and so the fair thing to do is bring the potential consequences of that decision back to the spouse. Counseling has not really brought the issue home, but the adult thing to do is to state it for the record. "I'm going to have sex. Is it going to be with you, or with someone else?"
posted by adipocere at 3:07 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

> kathrineg, Hope everything's okay.

Yeah, me too. Sorry if I was excessively harsh earlier, but MetaTalk is a harsh land, and (let's face it) this was a poorly worded post. Revisit it when you can.
posted by languagehat at 3:12 PM on July 31, 2009

The poster's wife wants to have her spouse, and have no-one else eat him, too.

Well, we don't know this bit, yet, since the poster has apparently thought of everything except talking to his wife about allowing him to go outside the relationship for sex. As far as we know - as far the poster has reported - she hasn't been given the opportunity to say one way or the other, because he hasn't asked her.
posted by rtha at 3:12 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

adipocere: "Imagine if your spouse just decided never to smile at you again, or hug you. Out of nowhere. Wouldn't you feel terribly betrayed?"

I wouldn't feel betrayed until the point of infidelity, personally. No one does anything out of nowhere, I think, least of all stop giving affection to a partner. If affection stops and getting to the root of why is either impossibly hard or impossible, OR, if the affection doesn't return after repeated attempts, we agree - the adult thing is to give an ultimatum.

(I also didn't realize that other post was yours, still having a hard time keeping up with usernames/answers. Apologies!)
posted by Tequila Mockingbird at 3:17 PM on July 31, 2009

How about I make a note to harass some of you when you don't continue to participate at a frequency most convenient to me?

Hi Optimus, please pencil me for a 4 o'clock session, if that works for you.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:21 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

Are you saying that consequences brought on by his cheating would never be as bad as a divorce no one in the family wants..?

No, the consequences of his cheating could be a divorce no-one wants, or there could be little or no consequences at all. The consequences of asking for a divorce (as recommended by milarepa) would almost certainly be a divorce no-one wants.
posted by timeistight at 3:22 PM on July 31, 2009

Sure denying him sex categorically is pretty foul, if in fact that's what's happening, which is unclear

No, it's pretty clear. Go reread the first two paragraphs. The whole point of the post is he's tried to work it out with the wife and nothing has happened. I'm not sure why you want to call him a liar.

Because it sounds like a better excuse to shag your neighbor if your wife is a heartless denier of affection? Moreso if the shaggable neighbor also has an equally heartless sex-withholding spouse as well?

Come on. We're getting one side of the story here. No one knows what is really going on with this couple. Taking the word of an anonymous poster saying that his marriage is "loving" yet "devoid of affection" automatically means that the wife has decided he must never have sex again hinges on a lot of assumptions. Surely if he had asked his wife if he could sleep with someone else, that would have come up in the post. Yet adipocere insists that this woman has decided that the OP should "buck up and be okay with it", when in fact we have no idea whether or not she'd be perfectly happy having him get laid somewhere else. Never mind the fact that she may be even more upset about the situation than the OP.

For all we know the OP can only get off when his wife dresses up like Idi Amin and spanks him with a rubber chicken, and she has an aversion to fowl. It's not necessary to vilify her as some sort of all-powerful, unapproachable humanity denying harpy based on the quality of information in the post, or to make the general argument that adipocere is making. To do so just makes the comment sound weirdly bitter.
posted by oneirodynia at 3:26 PM on July 31, 2009 [3 favorites]

timeistight: "No, the consequences of his cheating could be a divorce no-one wants, or there could be little or no consequences at all."

We're taking about risks however, which implies that there is a chance (a large chance, if not downright huge considering what and who he is suggesting), that this will blow up.

"Divorce" and "little or no consequences" is not anywhere on equal footing. People are advising the OP against it not just because it's morally wrong for many, but because the possibility of it working out is so very, very low. If you have a one in a million chance to win the lottery, go for it! You can only win. But if there's a one in a million chance of breaking apart your family, it says a lot about you when that's your choice.
posted by Tequila Mockingbird at 3:29 PM on July 31, 2009

Damn. I wonder what Don Draper, Roger Sterling and Pete Campbell would have to say about all of this.
posted by ericb at 3:33 PM on July 31, 2009

I'm cheating on MetaFilter RIGHT NOW.

I just don't give a fuck.
posted by Eideteker at 3:36 PM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]

the possibility of it working out is so very, very low

Very, very low isn't zero. If he gets a divorce (as recommended by milarepa) things have no chance of working out. We're talking about the difference between slim and none.
posted by timeistight at 3:43 PM on July 31, 2009

I have a friend who married his cockatoo. Everyone said that wouldn't work out, but look at them now.
posted by found missing at 3:47 PM on July 31, 2009

I'm cheating on MetaFilter RIGHT NOW.

I might fuck around with other sites, but on Metafilter I'm making love, baby.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:54 PM on July 31, 2009 [9 favorites]

i continue to find it interesting that a majority of people focus on this being a good or bad idea based on if/when they get caught.
posted by nadawi at 3:55 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

If you gonna let a fuck come between our love, there's something really wrong happening here, baby.
posted by gman at 3:59 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

That polyamory FPP was weak. I'd flag it if it weren't too late to bother.
posted by pineapple at 4:01 PM on July 31, 2009

Some advice for Anon.: I've found putting "baby" at the end of all my sentences has gotten me out of all kinds of predicaments of my own doing: adultery, speeding tickets, spilling wine on the carpet, B&E, forgetting birthdays. It's pretty flexible, baby.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:07 PM on July 31, 2009 [5 favorites]

Twice I've brought up the issue of narrator unreliability. Twice I've brought up the idea that there's some critical portion we may not be hearing.

Unapproachable? Hardly. I will say it for the third time in this thread: he should bring up this idea with her, explicitly. Advocating that the OP approach his spouse with the idea of sexual relationship outside of marriage is kinda contrary to "unapproachable." If they've had marriage counseling over the issue, then certainly the sexlessness has been more than casually mentioned.

My insistence, as you put it, is merely that playing the "well, it could be like this, it could be like that" game not only fails to answer the question (which is what AskMe is there for), it's also pointless (because we do not know, and we never, ever will) and disrespectful to the person asking the question.

What's underlying all of this is the one size fits all marriage. It's not all Ward and June Cleaver. Marriage can be gay marriage, it can be polyamory, it can be mutually sexless, it could involve hot little threeways on your yearly summer cruise. It could be an amicable five year deal — a starter marriage. It's not always "either it's this husband with this matching wife, or else it's divorce." That's a false choice to try to lock everyone into.

All I advocate is that a reasonable discussion take place wherein all of the partners mutually recognize one another's needs. Is that so insane, really?

Excuse me, I'm still tender. Brandon Blatcher de-spoused me recently and *sniff* I'm a little touchy. Brandon, if you're listening, I want my autographed Hedwig LP back!
posted by adipocere at 4:29 PM on July 31, 2009 [5 favorites]

For all we know the OP can only get off when his wife dresses up like Idi Amin and spanks him with a rubber chicken, and she has an aversion to fowl. It's not necessary to vilify her as some sort of all-powerful, unapproachable humanity denying harpy based on the quality of information in the post, or to make the general argument that adipocere is making.

Don't stop there. Maybe she's Hitler in a brassiere. Maybe she needs genuine human suffering to get herself off. Maybe she needs to torture puppies. With barracuda. There's no way to know, is there?!

Or maybe you could consider adipocere's suggestion to simply respectfully accept the premises of the question. I know, I know. CRAZY!
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 4:32 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

Because it sounds like a better excuse to shag your neighbor if your wife is a heartless denier of affection?

Again, I'm not sure what people are going on about here. Dude said they've tried talking, counseling etc, but the spouse wasn't into sex anymore. He didn't slag her as being a heartless denier or anything like, in fact he praised several of her qualities and didn't speak an ill word about her.

Brandon, if you're listening...

Yeah, right!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:44 PM on July 31, 2009

Regardless of the question, this is a lame call-out. kathrineg's 'family emergency' didn't occur before she posted a MeTa consisting of five context-free words and a lot of inflammatory tags. I hope she and her family are okay, but she shouldn't come away thinking this sort of MeTa post is acceptable, because it's not.
posted by goo at 4:46 PM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]

Meh. Accepting the premises of the question is for AskMe. This is MeTa.

One of the problems with the question, though, is that the premises don't add up. I won't deny that he has a sexless marriage, and an otherwise wonderful wife. But how can he say that he's gone through marriage counselling and therapy to talk about the no-sex, but his only recourse is sleeping with a married woman behind his wife's back? It just doesn't follow.

This is akin to an AskMe asking: "My husband's dog barks all the time, and it drives me nuts. I've talked to him about it, and he totally agrees that his dog is a problem, but offers no solutions as to how we can stop his dog from keeping me up at night. So, I need advice on how to hire the neighborhood bully to abduct the dog every so often, beat the shit out of it, then return it, without anybody ever finding out. Ever."

The proposed solution may solve the problem. It may not. The solution doesn't necessarily follow from the premise. Sure, the solution satiates the frustration, but it by no means addresses the root of the problem. And there are about a hundred better solutions out there. And finally, don't you get the sense that if the wife want to beat the shit out of the dog, she has other issues besides the fact that it barks all the time?
posted by jabberjaw at 4:52 PM on July 31, 2009

I don't know about the rest of this, but Jofus is fully awesome.
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 4:56 PM on July 31, 2009

I hope she and her family are okay, but she shouldn't come away thinking this sort of MeTa post is acceptable, because it's not.

My guess is she won't make one like it again. Please leave the katherineg part out of this. If she's really having a family emergency, this sucks. If she's not, then I'm sure there will be time in the future for discussing this sort of thing.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:02 PM on July 31, 2009 [3 favorites]

Meh. Accepting the premises of the question is for AskMe. This is MeTa.

I agree. I actually think this is a thinly disguised question from a young boy who wants to run away and become a circus clown and/or learn how to declaw cats. Your answers will seal his fate! You decide!
posted by P.o.B. at 5:12 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

If he wants to get ahead in life, he'll hire a circus clown to declaw cats.
posted by languagehat at 5:19 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

The image of a circus clown declawing cats frightens me in a number of different ways. Therefore, I fully support any such endeavors, and can recommend both a good veterinary school and a good clown college.
posted by jabberjaw at 5:25 PM on July 31, 2009

Please leave the katherineg part out of this. If she's really having a family emergency, this sucks. If she's not, then I'm sure there will be time in the future for discussing this sort of thing.

Sure, but she brought it up. If she'd chosen to explain her issues with the question in her post then she probably wouldn't have had as much grief directed at her in this thread.

I don't know about the rest of this, but Jofus is fully awesome.
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome

I thought Australians were the only people to use 'fully' as an intensifier like that - maybe I'm wrong. Fully sik, mate! Fully sik clown declawers, eating delicious strawberry and rhubarb pie!
posted by goo at 5:30 PM on July 31, 2009

For goodness sake, LEAVE RHUBARB ALONE!
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 5:40 PM on July 31, 2009

No, it's pretty clear. Go reread the first two paragraphs. The whole point of the post is he's tried to work it out with the wife and nothing has happened. I'm not sure why you want to call him a liar.

I wasn't really trying to call him a liar, per se. I just found his post kinda fishy. And I didn't mean to be as harsh to adipocere as it came out because for the most part I agree with what he (he?) is saying. I am not some prude that thinks there aren't many different types of functioning marriages. I just find so coldly plotting to cheat sort of depressing and gross. If your marriage is so bad you've got to cheat, meaning no arrangement can be honestly made in the open, then do the other person a favor and file for divorce. It's that simple. And the fact that he floats the idea it would be better for his kids if he just cheated on their mom instead of divorcing her is also sort of gross. Sure, being an unresponsive wife is terrible, but at least she is doing it to his face.
posted by milarepa at 5:44 PM on July 31, 2009

Today, I unloaded a bagful of books for a young guy in a fedora and rumpled suit. Among the other items in his bag was a teddy bear. The teddy bear was wearing a diaper. The diaper appeared to be made out of masking tape or something. I don't know either.

I'd advise against an affair with that dude.
posted by jonmc at 6:15 PM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]

The teddy bear was wearing a diaper.

T'was likely Aloysius -- loved and dearly cared for.
posted by ericb at 6:40 PM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]

Sure, but she brought it up. If she'd chosen to explain her issues with the question in her post then she probably wouldn't have had as much grief directed at her in this thread.

She tapped out & gave a reason for doing so. If she comes back & her explanations aren't persuasive, I'll have no problems having a go at her then. But there's no gain to be had from attacking somebody who flat out says they're not around to defend themselves.
posted by scalefree at 6:43 PM on July 31, 2009

What, having affairs with a married woman who your wife also knows and whose husband you know, when you both have kids, and probably otherwise run in the same social circle as well? Sure, it's impossible to say categorically that there's never been a situation like that that didn't end in misery, but if there were some way to prove it, I'd put down a significant amount of money that there's a greater than 99% chance they'd be caught eventually in that particular situation, and I don't think there's any chance that getting caught wouldn't end in misery.

Maybe it's impossible in your social circle. You think it's possible that other people have different lives than you? (And different expectations from marriage, and different levels of concern about sexual fidelity.)
posted by desuetude at 7:09 PM on July 31, 2009

Did that question remind anyone else of Kate Chopin's amazing 1898 story, "The Storm," which presents a totally hot adulterous encounter in an isolated cabin under a crashing, thunderous rain as pretty much a completely soothing balm on not only the adulterers but also their unknowing spouses and kids? It's an astonishing classic lit reading experience and one of the most powerful literary defenses of extra-marital sex you'll ever read.

I will only listen to objections to that question from folks who've read that story first.
posted by mediareport at 7:21 PM on July 31, 2009 [4 favorites]

I will only listen to objections to that question from folks who've read that story first.

Okay, give me a sec:

*goes and reads*

On the contrary, I found it a poignant response to the pressures women may have been under in an earlier era, when people did not necessarily marry for love, or who had far stricter pressures put upon them to marry someone "suitable", and certainly weren't as accustomed to knowing about physical affection and passion before pledging marriage to someone -- so there were countless couples who were mismatched emotionally and/or physically, and were stuck in one marriage knowing for a long time that so-and-so, whom they met later, should have been the one they married all along.

But it is fortunate that we live in an era today that a) allows us to select our partners freely, b) postpone marriage until we do so, by allowing women to work for their own bread and butter, c) accepts premarital sex for the most part, allowing couples to suss out the physical side of things, and d) allows us to negotiate sexual issues within a marriage -- up to and including opening that marriage to extra marital sex if BOTH PARTNERS agree to it -- and to dissolve that marriage if necessary. I find The Storm to be a poignant relic of another era, and far from finding it a powerful literary defense of extra-marital sex, I find it a reminder of how much we have gained in society through open communication.

....Okay! I trust you read all that since I read the story first and all that. I trust you accept my objection as valid, as a result?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:42 PM on July 31, 2009 [10 favorites]

Wow, you are a fast reader EC; it would have taken me twenty minutes just to type out your response.
posted by saucysault at 8:00 PM on July 31, 2009

Maybe it's impossible in your social circle. You think it's possible that other people have different lives than you? (And different expectations from marriage, and different levels of concern about sexual fidelity.)

My expectations would be that the lying and resulting betrayal of trust would cause the most misery, rather than the infidelity. But you're right, some people could totally be all about their spouses lying to them.
posted by Caduceus at 8:32 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

I find The Storm to be a poignant relic of another era

Huh. I find it a poignant precursor of modernity in an era of horrible oppression of women's sexuality and freedom.

Gotta love literature. :)
posted by mediareport at 8:32 PM on July 31, 2009

Plus, the sex is really hot.
posted by mediareport at 8:35 PM on July 31, 2009

some people could totally be all about their spouses lying to them

I think you have vastly overestimated humanity.
posted by greekphilosophy at 10:22 PM on July 31, 2009

My expectations would be that the lying and resulting betrayal of trust would cause the most misery, rather than the infidelity.

This is so not the case. eg.

"I'm sorry darling. I lied about going to work for the last month because I was so ashamed about losing my job, I just couldn't tell you the truth."

"There, there dear. Please don't do that again."

vs.

"I'm sorry darling. I lied about fucking that other woman because I just didn't want to hurt you by letting you know that I was gagging for a bit on the side."

"You shameless bastard. Pack a case now -- you'll be hearing from my lawyers in the morning."
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:29 PM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]

Great story. I never seem to get the gumption to revisit the old reading lists, so if nothing else, thanks for that.

The storm is a violent thing that hits is with unexpected force. Its suddenness and ferocity is what energizes us.

Well - when I was driving through Oregon one December in 1998, the blizzard had run its course but the roads were still iced over. The car I was driving was heavier than it should have been, with four passengers crammed in. As I driving down the 5 freeway, I changed lanes from the fast lane to the slow lane when the tires lost traction. To make a long story short, I miraculously survived on a crowded freeway in an out-of-control vehicle moving at about 60 miles per hour, everything without even a scratch. But afterward, the rush was amazing! I lived off of that energy - the energy of defying death - for days afterward.

I guess my point is, surviving an unexpected car accident is one thing. Going out and planning to drive hazardously in dangerous conditions on a crowded icy road is just irresponsible. You might get a good rush out of it, but at what cost?

Find me a story where a premeditated affair turns out good for all involved.
posted by jabberjaw at 10:56 PM on July 31, 2009

If he wants to get ahead in life, he'll hire a circus clown to declaw cats.

This is why it's important to follow the directions carefully, or you might end up circumcising a clown.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 11:07 PM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]

...you might end up circumcising a clown.

Now there's some sad things known to man
But ain't too much sadder than
The tears of a [accidentally circumcised] clown
When there's no one around
posted by amyms at 11:45 PM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]

One of the problems with the question, though, is that the premises don't add up.

What struck me, as one of the clueless men who send out super obvious signals and think we are totally discreet: his wife has become less and less interested in sex with OP because she has watched her husband falling in love with married friend over the course of the last few years.
posted by Meatbomb at 12:44 AM on August 1, 2009 [3 favorites]

When it comes to AskMe, I believe that it's fully possible to make a useful contribution in the form of your silence.

Everyone's got issues that set them off, that they cannot, for whatever reason, be wholly objective about. And while the experiences that have left them in such a condition regarding these issues might also have left them with plenty to say, a lot of those potential comments have a strong potential of being Not at All Useful. When considering a response to a question that cranks up my blood pressure, I often find that the way I can best serve the thread is to just leave it alone.

By Baldur, do I wish I had understood this back when I first signed up! To this day, I'm embarrassed by some of the steaming dumps I took in AskMes that redlined my personal outrage-o-meter. I suppose everyone has regrets about their n00b runs, and this is mine - a wish that I had left questions alone when they were on subjects that I was just too close to or wrapped up in to make a constructive contribution to.

The question at the center of this MeTa is a perfect example. As a fella who has been cheated on in some truly heinous ways and then had to listen to that cheating get rationalized, I am in no way equipped to respond in a useful way to anon's question. My reactions on read-throughs number one through five were all some variant of "Christ, what a cowardly, selfish asshole," and any answers I would have typed would all be some form of "Don't do this to yourself or any of the families involved ... you cowardly, selfish asshole." I've no idea if my read of the question was fair - indeed, I'm rather confident that it was not. But, thanks to my personal baggage, that's the only way I was capable of perceiving it.

Dude posted this question in search of a way to cheat semi-painlessly, not for a round of JudgeMe. I don't believe the answer he's looking for actually exists, but I'm just some prick on the internet. What do I know? After about a half-dozen aborted topic sentences, I decided it was best to contribute silence to that AskMe. And since it wasn't an obit post, I couldn't even denote silence by posting a lone period.

The best possible contribution that I, or anyone else who gets unreasonably hot under the collar in regard to infidelity, could have made to that thread was to just close the tab. Which is a bummer, I know, as there's no way such an action can yield any favorites!
posted by EatTheWeek at 1:29 AM on August 1, 2009 [10 favorites]

The best possible contribution that I, or anyone else who gets unreasonably hot under the collar in regard to infidelity, could have made to that thread was to just close the tab. Which is a bummer, I know, as there's no way such an action can yield any favorites!

Yeah, 'cept for the MeTa post, of course... that can get plenty of the ol' faves.
posted by Netzapper at 3:47 AM on August 1, 2009

Not at the bottom of a dying thread it can't.

LOOK DOWN HERE PEOPLE!
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:57 AM on August 1, 2009

Just wanted to say that I love that this discussion led to a link to Kate Chopin's work.
posted by orange swan at 4:59 AM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

I, for one, am too lazy, unimaginative, and clumsy to have an affair.
posted by everichon at 10:28 AM on August 1, 2009 [2 favorites]

Don't stop there. Maybe she's Hitler in a brassiere. Maybe she needs genuine human suffering to get herself off. Maybe she needs to torture puppies. With barracuda. There's no way to know, is there?!

Or maybe you could consider adipocere's suggestion to simply respectfully accept the premises of the question. I know, I know. CRAZY!

Dude, go back and read my comment. My point was that adipocere's assertions that the wife refuses to allow her husband to have any sex for the rest of her life has nothing to do with the premises of the question. All we know is what we are told in the post, which does not support adipocere's declarations.
posted by oneirodynia at 10:34 AM on August 1, 2009

Really oneirodynia?

Go reread the first two paragraphs. The whole point of the post is he's tried to work it out with the wife and nothing has happened. I'm not sure why you want to call him a liar.

Because it sounds like a better excuse to shag your neighbor if your wife is a heartless denier of affection? Moreso if the shaggable neighbor also has an equally heartless sex-withholding spouse as well?

Yeah, no assumptions being made there. You have no intention of sticking to the premises, so cut the crap.

This whole thing is an exercise in projection.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 11:51 AM on August 1, 2009

(How in the hell did misha's post stay on the question? I shudder to think what the deleted non-answers must have been like...)
posted by rodgerd at 1:20 PM on August 1, 2009

I know his comment was significantly more than a one-liner in all caps, but if you ask me, comments that end with "I'm not sure why I bothered responding" shouldn't be responses at all.

Yes...I had a vehement reaction to this sanctimonious, self-righteous, spittle-spattering "answer" even if it was entirely loaded with perfectly rational nuggets of wisdom.

Trust me, if you're not sure why you're bothering to answer to the extent that you'd include those words in your response, we're fine if you don't (or you know, step back long enough to compose an answer that doesn't seem to serve your own desire to step up on the podium and whoop some ass for all to see).

I've spoken out on the "skewer the asker" answer-style in the past and think it might be a fine idea to eliminate favorites on AskMe answers for this reason alone...but I'm probably just still experiencing residual vehemence.
posted by aydeejones at 2:00 PM on August 1, 2009

This has been an incredibly informative thread. I learned a valuable lesson.

When you see a post in ask.metafilter that offends you, don't moralistically imply that the poster is inferior and take delight in their suffering. That's what metatalk is for.
posted by koeselitz at 4:22 PM on August 1, 2009 [7 favorites]

Note, if middle of conversation with one person another person comes along and says they're angry with you about something, telling them "That's off topic, take it to Meta" does not work.

Just trying to share a little something I learned today.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:20 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

The original AskMe question, its responses, this callout and its writer's behavior, have me, a reasonably well-adjusted, intelligent, compassionate professional, scratch my head with my index and middle fingers just south of where my hair, which is typically well groomed, but happens to look like I had been sitting on a Van de Graff generator, is, which in doing so causes a most sublime scent to waft about the room.

I look at my fingers, and place them, together, under my nose.
I inhale.
Rotato.
posted by herrdoktor at 7:27 PM on August 1, 2009

I never new Don DeLillo was a mefite.
posted by Dr Dracator at 9:24 PM on August 1, 2009

I never new Don DeLillo was a mefite.

Nor did he now!
posted by ericb at 10:26 PM on August 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

Well, know he does.
posted by Dr Dracator at 10:28 PM on August 1, 2009

Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Katherineg posted this tripe of a MeTa post and never ever actually had anything to say about the AskMe?

God, I find people flawed sometimes.
posted by delfuego at 3:41 PM

Me, too.
posted by ignignokt at 7:46 AM on August 2, 2009

Katherineg
posted by Rumple at 8:28 AM on August 2, 2009 [1 favorite]

I note that Katherineg is now back and answering in AskMe, so we await her explanation here.....
posted by modernnomad at 9:09 AM on August 2, 2009

Yes, because not giving an explanation for a MeTa callout that could very easily have numerous plausible and acceptable explanations is something totally worth hating someone for. I know that I, personally, am going to be vexed all day and night until I get that explanation. What will I do if I never get it? What? Will? I? Do?

Oh, I know. I'll stalk Katherineg to find out when she's on the site and obsess about it. Problem solved. You're welcome.

Eh? I was in another thread and happened to notice she replied in it... I have no feelings either way about Katherineg nor am I stalking her... I'm not especially vexed about this either -- if she never comes back, fair enough -- it won't be the end of the world.

Breath deeply The World Famous! I'm not the stalker you're looking for...
posted by modernnomad at 10:35 AM on August 2, 2009

> I guess I should have included the sarcasm and hyperbole tags.

No, you should have rethought the whole idea and not made the uncalled-for comment in the first place.

And I too noticed kathrineg in another thread and thought "Hmm, I wonder if she'll bother visiting her shitpile of a MeTa thread." Does that make me a Bad Person?
posted by languagehat at 3:25 PM on August 2, 2009

ZOMG! I'm new here. Whaddidimiss?
posted by at the crossroads at 4:38 PM on August 2, 2009

Now, with a too-expensive flight booked, and plenty of soju in my stomach, I can enjoy these long meandering reads, these exemplars par excellence of modern, post-modern literature.

And Christ, "The Storm" was a steaming pile! It was a Tyrian boot stomping the poor metaphor, dazed and naked, into the mud! That it was published in print only means that our forebears lacked LiveJournals and that it has persevered only means that our English teachers lack forbearance in the face of the gaudy.
posted by klangklangston at 5:06 AM on August 3, 2009

Ha! Forebears lacked forbearance! I love it. Four bears forebore to bore four boards with four forepaws for their forebear there– for pa. Faux pas?
posted by Mister_A at 8:32 AM on August 3, 2009 [1 favorite]

Now, with a too-expensive flight booked

dude, update your thread. we are all hanging on your every word.
posted by desjardins at 10:03 AM on August 3, 2009

Candygram for Kathrineg
posted by cjets at 12:11 PM on August 3, 2009

Closing at poster's request...
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:34 PM on August 3, 2009